4 ms·
Author of the original Association of American Publishers report posted a comment to Washington Post article with rebuttal of this interpretation of their data:
by bd 13y ago
Author of the original Association of American Publishers report posted a comment to Washington Post article with rebuttal of this interpretation of their data:
As the person who produced the AAP report quoted here, I'm not given enough characters in Comments to point out the countless errors in this piece. It misunderstands our basic data and, since our reports only track current vs previous year, quotes figures that come out of nowhere and are unrecognizable. It misses the widely-reported fact that Q1 2013's overall eBook growth slowed because of the Children's/Young Adults category: The Q1 lead-up to the Hunger Games film in March 2012 drove C/YA eBooks to extraordinary triple-digit growth; minus a comparable blockbuster in Q1 2013, C/YA slowed. Adult Fiction/Non-Fiction eBooks, however, grew 14% in the same time '12-'13 period.
Also, an essential point is missed: These are not retail sales numbers but, instead, publishers' net revenues coming from all their distribution channels including Institutions (e.g. schools, libraries) and Book Fairs. That also means, for instance, that with Borders' financial troubles no longer a factor, publishers have seen their net revenue from print stabilize which, in turn, affects their overall percentage earned from eBooks in these reports.
Finally, the piece's premise that an eBook is an eBook is an eBook is wrong. Each category within consumer books - Adult Fiction/Non-Fiction, Children's/YA and Religious Presses - has moved into e-formats at different points in time. Adult F/NF was the pioneer, starting years ago, and that growth has become more consistent as it's matured. C/YA, which entered later, is now in the midst of enormous transition. Religious Presses are more newcomers to eBooks. Lumping these distinct categories together and making broad generalizations makes little sense.
We release highlights of all our reports to media (including the Post). We're happy to share. But an article based on a non-journalistic blog that itself has only second-hand information does a disservice to readers, authors and publishers.
Andi Sporkin
Association of American Publishers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/08/e-book-sales-are-leveling-off-heres-why/?commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/1376001588-174-705 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/08/e...
- dmix 13y agoThis is proper journalism ^, getting analysis from people who didn't just read the abstract.
- ksec 13y agoYes. And I must say OMG, i thought proper journalism was dead! Nice to see it is still alive somewhere.
- Revisor 13y agoDoes it really dispute the original article about the trend in the whole medium? Mr. Sporkin analyzes single ebook categories but that doesn't change numbers for all ebooks. It's written like a rebuttal but I read it as an addendum.
- razorburn 13y agoCarr's response to Sporkin: I am the author of the original blog post. I'm not sure what exactly Ms. Sporkin read, but although she accuses me of "countless errors," she doesn't actually specify any of them. The AAP numbers on e-book sales growth that I used come from AAP reports on 1st quarter book sales from 2009 to 2013. Yes, they are current year vs. previous year numbers, which is precisely how I describe them in the text and chart. And yes, they are for the overall e-book market, which seems a reasonable way to illustrate overall trends in that market. I agree, of course, that examining segments of that market would also be useful. Nick Carr